Summary
finding that plaintiffs' counsel making "significant investments of time" without compensation weighed in favor of granting attorney fees
Summary of this case from Blasi v. United Debt Servs.Opinion
Case No. 1:07CV430.
June 24, 2011
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This civil action, brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., is before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion for Order: (1) Approving Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims; (2) Approving Notices of Settlement Agreement; and (3) Approving Settlement of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. (Doc. 221.)
I. BACKGROUND
On June 4, 2007, Christopher Gentrup and eight other Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a complaint against Renovo Services, LLC, and its subsidiaries, Recovery One, LLC; Cyber Asset Recovery, LLC; and Ascension Recovery, LLC ("Defendants"), alleging that Defendants violated Section 207(a)(1) of the FLSA by misclassifying them as independent contractors and failing to pay them overtime. (Doc. 1.) The Defendants denied any liability and affirmatively asserted that the Plaintiffs were independent contractors, who were not subject to the overtime requirements of the FLSA. (Doc. 22.) On August 7, 2008, Defendants amended their Answer to additionally assert that the Plaintiffs' claims were barred, in whole or in part, by the motor carrier exemption provided for in § 13(b)(1) of the FLSA. (Doc. 169.) Plaintiffs were permitted, on December 16, 2009, to add Renaissance Recovery Solutions, LLC, as an additional Defendant and to add a claim that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs minimum wages as required by Section 207(a)(1) of the FLSA. (Doc. 193.)
The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional Certification on September 26, 2007, (Doc. 26), which was granted on January 24, 2008. (Doc. 58.) Court-Approved Notice was sent to eligible individuals beginning March 26, 2008. Joining the named Plaintiffs were 108 Plaintiffs who opted into the proceeding by filing Consents, primarily in response to the class Notice. Subsequently, eleven Plaintiffs were dismissed for failure to cooperate in discovery. There are currently 106 Plaintiffs in this case.
II. STATUS OF THE CASE
On August 31, 2010, this Court issued its Calender Order, setting a discovery deadline of May 31, 2011, with a decertification motion deadline of July 15, 2011 and a dispositive motion deadline of December 30, 2011. (Doc. 204) There has been substantial discovery in this case over the course of several years, beginning with discovery connected to conditional certification, proceeding with discovery connected to Defendants' affirmative defense of the motor carrier exemption, and continuing with discovery connected to decertification and summary judgment and trial. (Doc. 221, pgs. 6-7.) Toward the end of the discovery period, the parties were able to reach agreement on the terms of a settlement. The parties now jointly move for approval of their negotiated Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims and Settlement of Attorneys' Fees and Costs, both of which were filed under seal pursuant to the terms of the parties' Protective Order. (Doc. 220.)
For the reasons that follow, this Court approves both Settlements and the Notices to Plaintiffs which summarize the terms of the Settlements and provide them with the opportunity to participate in the Settlement.
III. DISCUSSION
A. The Proposed Settlement
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims, the Defendants have agreed to pay a fixed overall settlement amount which will be used to pay individual Plaintiffs, who timely execute and return a Settlement Acceptance and Release. Payments will be made in eight quarterly installments. The amounts payable to individual Plaintiffs will be determined according to a formula based on their eligible months of service for Defendants. If a Plaintiff does not accept the Settlement, the amount to which that Plaintiff would be entitled will be redistributed among those Plaintiffs who choose to participate. In return for their payments, the Plaintiffs will be asked to sign a release of claims. Based on the undertakings in the Settlement, the parties agree to seek the dismissal, with prejudice, of the lawsuit, with the Court retaining limited jurisdiction for purposes of its enforcement.
B. Standards for Approval of an FLSA Settlement
As a general rule, employees' claims under the FLSA are non-waivable and may not be settled without supervision of either the Secretary of Labor or a district court. The proper procedure for obtaining court approval of the settlement of FLSA claims is for the parties to present to the court a proposed settlement, upon which the district court may enter a stipulated judgment only after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness. If a settlement in an employee FLSA suit reflects "a reasonable compromise over issues," such as FLSA coverage or computation of back wages that are "actually in dispute," the court may approve the settlement "in order to promote the policy of encouraging settlement of litigation."
Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352-53 (11th Cir. 1982).
Id. at 1353
Id. at 1354
The Court has reviewed the proposed Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims and finds it is fair and reasonable.
First, the pleadings in this case and the representations of the parties establish that there is a bona fide dispute under the FLSA. Plaintiffs and Defendants dispute whether repossession agents are independent contractors or employees, whether all or many of the Plaintiffs are exempt from the FLSA based on Defendants' affirmative defense of the motor carrier exemption, and the amount of any damages. The parties have considered the relative strengths and weaknesses of their claims, the uncertainties and risks inherent in continued litigation, and the benefits of settlement. (Doc. 221 pgs 9-10.)
The Sixth Circuit has identified a number of factors to aid the court in determining whether a class action settlement is "fair, reasonable and adequate." These factors are also considered in determining whether the settlement of FLSA claims is "fair and reasonable." The factors cited by the Circuit include: (1) the risk of fraud or collusion; (2) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the amount of discovery completed; (4) the likelihood of success on the merits; (5) the opinion of class counsel and representatives; (6) the reaction of absent class members; and (7) public interest in the settlement.
Crawford v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90070 at *21-31, 2008 WL 4723399, (E.D. Ky, Oct 23, 2008); Rotuna v. West Customer Mgmt. Group, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58912 at *15-16 (N.D. Ohio June 15, 2010)
Int'l Union, United Auto, Aerospace and Agr. Implement Workers of Am. v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615, 631 (6th Cir. 2007), citing Granada Invs., Inc. v. DWG Corp., 962 F.2d 1203, 1205 (6th Cir. 1992)
The court may choose to consider only factors that are relevant to the settlement at hand and may weigh particular factors according to the demands of the case. In certain cases, a court may consider each factor individually. "More often, however, inquiry into one factor necessarily overlaps with inquiry into another."
Redington v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64639, 2008 WL 3981461 at *11 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 23, 2008) citing Granada, 962 F.2d at 1205-06.
In re Cincinnati Policing, 209 F.R.D. 395, 400 (S.D. Ohio 2002)
In this case, the parties have vigorously litigated this matter for more than four years. There is no evidence of fraud or collusion. Based on the complexity of the issues and number of Plaintiffs, the continued litigation of this matter will extend at least a year or more with considerable expenditures of time and resources of the parties and the Court.
"The likelihood of success. . . . provides a gauge from which the benefits of the settlement must be measured." The ultimate question is whether the plaintiffs are better served if the litigation is resolved by the settlement rather than pursued. The Court is not required to determine if the settlement is the fairest possible resolution of the claims of each plaintiff, but rather whether the settlement taken as a whole is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The risks posed by Defendants' position on the independent contractor issue, and the motor carrier affirmative defense to Plaintiffs' claims, justify a compromise settlement which provides a settlement payment to all Plaintiffs.
General Tire Rubber Co. Sec. Litig., 726 F.2d 1075, 1086 (6th Cir. 1984)
UAW v. General Motors Corp., 2006 U.S. LEXIS 14890, 2006 WL 89115 at *15 (E. D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2006), aff'd 497 F.3d 616 (6th Cir. 2007)
Both Plaintiffs' and Defendants' counsel believe that the settlement is fair and reasonable, which weighs in favor of approving the settlement. Courts are particularly likely to defer to the judgment of experienced trial counsel where, as here, significant discovery has been completed.
Worthington v. CDW Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32100 at *13 (S.D. Ohio May 22, 2006).
Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909, 922-23 (6th Cir. 1983)
The Plaintiff class has been advised of the tentative settlement and Plaintiffs' counsel has received no objections, although individual settlement amounts currently are unknown. Given the uncertainties surrounding the possible trial in this matter, the certainty and finality that come with settlement also weigh in favor of a ruling approving the settlement. Such a ruling promotes the public interest in encouraging the settlement of litigation.
Rotuna, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58912 at *16, citing Crawford, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90070, 2008 WL 4723399 at *9; Dillworth v. Case Farms Processing, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20446 at *15, (N.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2010) also citing Crawford.
The relevant factors individually and collectively support a finding that the settlement is fair and reasonable and that it resolves a bona fide dispute over the FLSA claims asserted.
C. Class Representative Fee
The Settlement provides for lead Plaintiff Christopher Gentrup to receive an additional payment of $2,500.00 as a class representative fee for services rendered to the class, including his participation in an unsuccessful mediation in Chicago and his continuing assistance to counsel. (See Doc. 221 p. 15). The payment of this modest service fee is reasonable and appropriate in these circumstances.
Hadix v. Johnson, 332 F.3d 895, 897-98 (6th Cir. 2003); Enterprise Energy Corp. v. Columbia-Transmission Corp., 137 F. R D. 240, 250 (S.D. Ohio 1991).
D. Approval of Notices
As part of the Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims, the parties have agreed that separate Notices of Settlement Agreement will be sent to the filing named Plaintiffs and the optin Plaintiffs. (Doc. 221-3 and 221-4, respectively.) These Notices differ only as to the terms of the release provided, with a broader release for the named Plaintiffs. The Notices fairly and adequately describe the terms of the Settlement including the release of claims and the form and manner of payments. They are approved.
E. Settlement of Attorneys' Fees and Costs
Defendants have agreed to pay the Plaintiffs' attorney fees and costs as set forth in a separate Settlement of Attorney Fees and Costs filed under seal. Pursuant to § 216(b) of the FLSA, "[t]he court . . . shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the . . . plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action." 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). "The determination of a reasonable fee must be reached through an evaluation of a myriad of factors, all within the knowledge of the trial court, examined in light of the congressional policy underlying the substantive portions of the statute providing for the award of fees."
United Slate, Tile Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Ass'n, Local 307 v. G M Roofing and Sheet Metal Co., 732 F.2d 495, 501 (6th Cir. 1984).
The Sixth Circuit has approved both the "lodestar" and common fund method of payment of attorney fees. In calculating the lodestar "the most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate." From there, the court assesses (1) the value of the benefit rendered to the plaintiff class (i.e., the results achieved); (2) society's stake in rewarding attorneys who produce such benefits in order to maintain an incentive to others; (3) whether the services were undertaken on a contingent fee basis; (4) the value of the services on an hourly basis; (5) the complexity of the litigation; and (6) the professional skill and standing of counsel involved on both sides.
Rawlings v. Prudential-Bache Properties, Inc., 9 F.3d 513, 517 (6th Cir. 1993);
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-4 (1983)
Ramey v. Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., 508 F.2d 1188, 1196 (6th Cir. 1974)
Pursuant to the Settlement of Attorneys' Fees and Costs, Plaintiffs' counsel will be paid significantly less than the lodestar amount in this case. Moreover, the balance of the six decisional factors validates the reasonableness of the payment of attorneys' fees as called for in the settlement.
First, Plaintiffs' counsel have achieved a settlement in which all Plaintiffs may receive a payment — even those whose claims are subject to strong defenses. Second, society has a stake in rewarding the efforts of the attorneys who bring wage and hour cases, as these are frequently complex matters. Third, this case was litigated on a contingency basis. Plaintiffs' counsel have made significant investments of time and have advanced costs but have received no compensation in this matter. Fourth, the hourly rate of $350 of counsel is reasonable for experienced labor counsel in this type of case and the hours expended, 1,683.5 as of June 8, 2011, are reasonable given the course of this litigation. Fifth, as discussed, this case poses complicated issues of law and fact. Finally, Plaintiffs' counsel, Bruce H. Meizlish and Deborah R. Grayson, are experienced practitioners in the area of labor law, as are counsel for Defendants. Moreover, Defendants are in agreement that the attorneys' fees and costs in this Settlement are reasonable and this Court so finds.
The Court, therefore, GRANTS the Joint Motion for Order: (1) Approving Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims; (2) Approving Notices of Settlement Agreement; and (3) Approving Settlement of Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Doc. 221) and hereby ORDERS as follows: APPROVES APPROVES APPROVES
1. The Court hereby the Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims and finds that the Settlement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement of a bona fide dispute over the FLSA's provisions. 2. The Court the Notices of Settlement Agreement which are executed and appended to this Order as the Notices provide fair and adequate notice of the terms of the settlement; 3. The Court the Settlement of Attorneys' Fees and Costs which provides for fair and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of this action. 4. Counsel for Plaintiffs is to tender a proposed Order of Dismissal of this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED.NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
TO: All Plaintiffs who filed the Complaint in this Lawsuit.IMPORTANT-PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY
I. NOTICE OF YOUR RIGHTS
This Notice describes the Settlement of the Collective Action Lawsuit brought against Renovo Services, LLC and its subsidiaries, Recovery One, LLC; Cyber Asset Recovery, LLC; Ascension Recovery, LLC; and Renaissance Recovery Solutions, LLC. As a Plaintiff you are eligible to participate in the Settlement. This Notice describes the Settlement and explains how to participate in the Settlement, if you so choose.
THIS NOTICE IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION BY THE COURT AS TO THE MERITS OF ANY CLAIMS OR DEFENSES IN THIS LITIGATION
II. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
On June 7, 2007, nine Plaintiffs filed a federal collective action against Renovo, and three of its subsidiaries, claiming that they failed to properly pay overtime to repossession agents as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by misclassifying them as independent contractors. The Complaint was later amended to include allegations that Renovo additionally failed to pay minimum wage and to add a fourth subsidiary, Renaissance Recovery Solutions, LLC. Renovo denies the Plaintiffs' claims and contends that it properly classified repossession agents as independent contractors and that the repossession agents are exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA because they are subject to the Motor Carrier Act (MCA).
Following extensive formal and informal discovery of the claims and defenses, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement. The Settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and defenses, considering the risks and uncertainties of continued litigation. The Court has reviewed and approved the Settlement finding it is fair, adequate, and reasonable.
III. SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT
General Terms:
Renovo has agreed to pay a fixed overall settlement amount which will be used to pay individual settlements for all Plaintiffs who timely sign and return a Settlement Acceptance and Release Form. In addition, Renovo has agreed to pay a class representative fee to Christopher Gentrup and to pay attorney fees, which are the subject of a separate agreement.
Your Individual Settlement Amount: The Formula: Plaintiffs will be paid according to a formula based on eligible months of service while working for Renovo and one of its subsidiaries. The eligible period for calculating months of service will begin, according to previous Court rulings, with the acquisition dates of subsidiaries Ascension Recovery, LLC (January 3, 2006) Cyber Asset Recovery, LLC (March 7, 2006) and for Recovery One, the date three years prior to Notice (March 26, 2005). Because of the statute of limitations for FLSA claims, no months of service will be compensable if they fall more than three years prior to the filing of your consent in this case. The end of the eligible period will be the date we can establish a final repossession.
When Will I Know How Much I Will Receive?
Your individual settlement amount will not be known at the time you must decide whether to accept the settlement. Once the time for returning the Settlement Acceptance and Release forms expires, the number of plaintiffs participating and consequently, the number of eligible months of service will be known and the individual amounts will be determined. If a Plaintiff chooses not to participate in the Settlement, the sums otherwise payable will be redistributed to those participating in the Settlement. You will only receive the individual settlement amount if you execute the Settlement Acceptance and Release Form attached to this Notice of Settlement Agreement.
When and How Will I Be Paid?
Renovo has agreed to pay an overall settlement amount, but will be making the payment in eight quarterly installments. Accordingly, your eight payments will be mailed to you by Renovo on a quarterly basis. Payments will begin 30 days after the close of the settlement acceptance period.
All amounts under the Settlement will be paid without withholding and deductions and subject to Form 1099 reporting. You will be responsible for all taxes owed on this payment. You should consult your tax adviser regarding any questions about the tax consequences of your individual settlement payment. Attorney Fees and Expenses:
You will not personally pay any attorney fees; the attorney fees will be paid pursuant to a separate agreement which reflects a compromise of the fees in this matter.
Class Representative Payment
Because of his service to the class, including attending and participating in mediation efforts in Chicago, Plaintiff Christopher Gentrup will receive an additional payment of $2,500.00.
IV. RELEASES
In exchange for the individual settlement amount, you, your heirs, successors, assigns, executors, representatives and agents will release and discharge Renovo, including its subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, principals, partners, officers, directors, agents, employees, successors and assigns, from any and all claims, rights, demands, causes of action, and damages, including liquidated damages, expenses, fees and costs, which were or could have been asserted in the complaint or amended complaint in this lawsuit, including allegations that Renovo did not pay you any required wages, minimum wage or overtime wages pursuant to all state and federal wage and hour laws, including the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, or any state wage payment laws or state common law contract claims pertaining to payment of wages of any kind.
You, your heirs, successors, assigns, executors, representatives and agents also release and discharge Renovo, including its subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, principals, partners, officers, directors, agents, employees, successors and assigns, from any and all claims arising out of or reasonably related to the period you worked as a repossession agent for Renovo or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries (referred to hereafter collectively as "Renovo"), or the separation of your relationship with Renovo, at any time prior to the date you sign the Settlement Acceptance and Release Form. Such released claims include, but are not limited to, those arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981; the Americans with Disabilities Act; the Equal Pay Act; Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974; and any other law, statute, regulation, ordinance, executive order, or theory at common law, including breach of contract, tort, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or any wrongful discharge theory.
V. CONFIDENTIALITY
VI. HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT
30 days
Meizlish Grayson
830 Main Street — Suite 999
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Fax: (513) 345-4703
Email: brucelaw@fuse.net or drgravson@fuse.net.
YOUR CLAIM FORM MUST BE RECEIVED OR POSTMARKED BY: JULY 28, 2011.
VII. OBTAINING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
IF YOU RETURN THE CLAIM FORM AFTER THIS DATE, YOU CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT.
Bruce H. Meizlish/Deborah R. Grayson
Meizlish Grayson
830 Main Street — Suite 999
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 345-4700
Fax: (513) 345-4703
Email: brucelaw@fuse.net or drgrayson@fuse.net.
Questions may not be directed to the Court. You may, of course, seek the advice and guidance of your own individual attorney if you desire. The pleadings and other records of this litigation, including the Court's approval of the Settlement, may be examined online through public access to the court electronic resource system known as Pacer or at the office of the Clerk of Courts of the U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, located at the Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse, Room 103, 100 East Fifth Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SETTLEMENT ACCEPTANCE AND RELEASE
By my signature below, I acknowledge I have reviewed the Notice of Settlement Agreement, understand it, and voluntarily agree: 1) to participate in the Settlement; and 2) to release all claims as described in the Notice of Settlement Agreement at Section IV. RELEASES. Signed: ___________________________________ Dated: ___________________________________, 2011 ____________________________________ NAME (Please Print Legibly) ____________________________________ Address ____________________________________ City State ZIP ____________________________________ Telephone Number ____________________________________ Email Address YOUR SETTLEMENT ACCEPTANCE AND RELEASE MUST BE POSTMARKED OR RECEIVED BY: JULY 28, 2011Return the form by U.S. Mail, fax, email or personal delivery to:
Meizlish Grayson
830 Main Street — Suite 999
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Fax: (513) 345-4703
Email: brucelaw@fuse.net or drgrayson@fuse.net.
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
TO: All Plaintiffs who have joined the lawsuit by filing a consent to join the case.IMPORTANT-PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY
I. NOTICE OF YOUR RIGHTS
This Notice describes the Settlement of the Collective Action Lawsuit brought against Renovo Services, LLC and its subsidiaries, Recovery One, LLC; Cyber Asset Recovery, LLC; Ascension Recovery, LLC; and Renaissance Recovery Solutions, LLC. As a Plaintiff you are eligible to participate in the Settlement. This Notice describes the Settlement and explains how to participate in the Settlement, if you so choose.
THIS NOTICE IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION BY THE COURT AS TO THE MERITS OF ANY CLAIMS OR DEFENSES IN THIS LITIGATION.
II. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
On June 7, 2007, nine Plaintiffs filed a federal collective action against Renovo, and three of its subsidiaries, claiming that they failed to properly pay overtime to repossession agents as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. (FLSA) by misclassifying them as independent contractors. The Complaint was later amended to include allegations that Renovo additionally failed to pay minimum wage and to add a fourth subsidiary, Renaissance Recovery Solutions, LLC. Renovo denies the Plaintiffs' claims and contends that it properly classified repossession agents as independent contractors and that the repossession agents are exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA because they are subject to the Motor Carrier Act (MCA).
Following extensive formal and informal discovery of the claims and defenses, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement. The Settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and defenses, considering the risks and uncertainties of continued litigation. The Court has reviewed and approved the Settlement finding it is fair, adequate, and reasonable.
III. SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT
General Terms:
Renovo has agreed to pay a fixed overall settlement amount which will be used to pay individual settlements for all Plaintiffs who timely sign and return a Settlement Acceptance and Release Form. In addition, Renovo has agreed to pay a class representative fee to Christopher Gentrup and to pay attorney fees, which are the subject of a separate agreement.
Your Individual Settlement Amount: The Formula: Plaintiffs will be paid according to a formula based on eligible months of service while working for Renovo and one of its subsidiaries. The eligible period for calculating months of service will begin, according to previous Court rulings, with the acquisition dates of subsidiaries Ascension Recovery, LLC (January 3, 2006) Cyber Asset Recovery, LLC (March 7, 2006) and for Recovery One, the date three years prior to Notice (March 26, 2005). Because of the statute of limitations for FLSA claims, no months of service will be compensable if they fall more than three years prior to the filing of your consent in this case. The end of the eligible period will be the date we can establish a final repossession.
When Will I Know How Much I Will Receive?
Your individual settlement amount will not be known at the time you must decide whether to accept the settlement. Once the time for returning the Settlement Acceptance and Release forms expire, the number of plaintiffs participating and consequently, the number of eligible months of service will be known and the individual amounts will be determined. If a Plaintiff chooses not to participate in the Settlement, the sums otherwise payable will be redistributed to those participating in the Settlement. You will only receive the individual settlement amount if you execute the Settlement Acceptance and Release Form attached to this Notice of Settlement Agreement.
When and How Will I Be Paid?
Renovo has agreed to pay an overall settlement amount, but will be making the payment in eight quarterly installments. Accordingly, your eight payments will be mailed to you by Renovo on a quarterly basis. Payments will begin 30 days after the close of the settlement acceptance period.
All amounts under the Settlement will be paid without withholding and deductions and subject to Form 1099 reporting. You will be responsible for all taxes owed on this payment. You should consult your tax adviser regarding any questions about the tax consequences of your individual settlement payment. Attorney Fees and Expenses:
You will not personally pay any attorney fees; the attorney fees will be paid pursuant to a separate agreement which reflects a compromise of the fees in this matter.
Class Representative Payment
Because of his service to the class, including attending and participating in mediation efforts in Chicago, Plaintiff Christopher Gentrup will receive an additional payment of $2,500.00.
IV. RELEASES
In exchange for the individual settlement amount, you, your heirs, successors, assigns, executors, representatives and agents will release and discharge Renovo, including its subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, principals, partners, officers, directors, agents, employees, successors and assigns, from any and all claims, rights, demands, causes of action, and damages, including liquidated damages, expenses, fees and costs, which were or could have been asserted in the complaint or amended complaint in this lawsuit, including allegations that Renovo did not pay you any required wages, minimum wage or overtime wages pursuant to all state and federal wage and hour laws, including the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, or any state wage payment laws or state common law contract claims pertaining to payment of wages of any kind.
V. CONFIDENTIALITY
You agree that, unless required by law or court order, you will keep the terms of this settlement, including the total settlement amount and your individual settlement payment, completely confidential. To the extent that you are contacted by anyone about the settlement of this lawsuit and your individual claim, you will state only words to the effect that "the case has been settled." Nothing in this confidentiality provision shall prevent you from disclosing the terms of the settlement to your spouse or to attorneys or advisers with whom you consult for professional and/or tax advice, provided that you inform such persons of this obligation to maintain confidentiality prior to any disclosure to them.
VI. HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT
To receive money from the Settlement, you must complete and return the Settlement Acceptance and Release Form attached to this Notice. Please follow all the instructions on the form and return it within 30 days by U.S. mail, facsimile, email or personal delivery to:
Meizlish Grayson
830 Main Street — Suite 999
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Fax: (513) 345-4703
Email: brucelaw@fuse.net or drgrayson@fuse.net.
YOUR CLAIM FORM MUST BE RECEIVED OR POSTMARKED BY: JULY 28, 2011
VII. OBTAINING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
IF YOU RETURN THE CLAIM FORM AFTER THIS DATE, YOU CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT.
Bruce H. Meizlish/Deborah R. Grayson
Meizlish Grayson
830 Main Street — Suite 999
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 345-4700
Fax: (513) 345-4703
Email: brucelaw@fuse.net or drgrayson@fuse.net.
Questions may not be directed to the Court. You may, of course, seek the advice and guidance of your own individual attorney if you desire. The pleadings and other records of this litigation, including the Court's approval of the Settlement, may be examined online through public access to the court electronic resource system known as Pacer or at the office of the Clerk of Courts of the U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, located at the Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse, Room 103, 100 East Fifth Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SETTLEMENT ACCEPTANCE AND RELEASE
By my signature below, I acknowledge I have reviewed the Notice of Settlement Agreement, understand it, and voluntarily agree: 1) to participate in the Settlement; and 2) to release all claims as described in the Notice of Settlement Agreement at Section IV. RELEASES. Signed: ____________________________________ Dated: ____________________________________, 2011 ____________________________________ NAME (Please Print Legibly) ____________________________________ Address ____________________________________ City State ZIP ____________________________________ Telephone Number ____________________________________ Email Address YOUR SETTLEMENT ACCEPTANCE AND RELEASE MUST BE POSTMARKED OR RECEIVED BY: JULY 28, 2011Return the form by U.S. Mail, fax, email or personal delivery to:
Meizlish Grayson
830 Main Street — Suite 999
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Fax: (513) 345-4703
Email: brucelaw@fuse.net or drgrayson@fuse.net.